Re: Giving an application a window icon in a sensible way

Bent C Dalager wrote:
The repeated insinuation that I'm hallucinating (or whatever) is not
going to get any less false for your repeating it enough times, you
know.

I am not particularly concerned with its global truth value, but am
rather interested in finding out whether or not it will finally sink
in :-)

By which you mean what? Whether sheer repetition *will* have some of
the lesser intellects hereabout believing it? Whether you can actually
eventually confuse *me* into believing it? Or at least baffle me long
enough to slip a zinger by under my radar and unopposed? I wouldn't bet
on it...

If I'm running a server that gives direct access to the code, then it's
damn easy for someone to mess with it. Otherwise, they have to find
something else I'm running that functions as a server and compromise
it, or trick me into installing a back door Trojan, or something
similar. It's the difference between keeping jewelry in a back room
safe (which might of course be found and cracked) and in a front window
display case (much more visible and accessible).

Admittedly, this depends a lot on what operating system you use and
what you've done with it but the general case is that the back room
safe in this case is made from fragile glass and it is left outside in
the back alley.

Not *this* box. You must be thinking of Joe Blow's Windows XP SP1 box
with full raw sockets and no firewall, or his Win98 box with wide-open
NetBIOS hole, or Joe Inc.'s rack of NT/IIS servers all lubed up and
ready to accept whatever prong someone wants to poke into them, most
with outdated Symantec or McAfee products and nothing else in the way
of protection software.

It looks like maybe you define "semi-serious" as "multi-programmer", or
perhaps as "aspiring to some sort of commercial use or to working
professionally in the field" (yeah, right, when there's a glut of
experts already, and lots of the others have industry contacts and
industry experience that I lack).

"Semi-serious" basically means "not a throw-away one-use program that
I just need to this thing right here right now".

Meaning you won't use version control on "hello, world", but you might
on a two-class pipsqueak that you rigged to automate picking your
lottery numbers or some *** like that?

Looks like you draw the line at dropping that nuke when the toilet
begins to look visibly grimy. ;)

What do you use to recharge your laptop, a tokamak?

It would surprise me if Eclipse did not support seamless version
control.

I had the impression that it could, after some one-time configuration
headaches of unknown magnitude. I'd have to research that sometime
tomorrow though to confirm it and to measure the severity of said
headaches on the Saffer-Simpson scale.

In my experience, getting started with Subversion consists of
dowloading the software, installing it (easy enough), reading the
manual (thereby learning that there is pretty much nothing you need to
configure) and getting on with things. Of course, as always, YMMV, so
you could certainly stumble into problems I did not.

That's what I was afraid of. It's been *my* experience that if you
download any type of server software, install it, and do "pretty much
nothing" to configure it, you've just hung out the welcome mat for
Christ alone knows what. From which a firewall *might* save your bacon.

Now maybe that's not the case with Subversion specifically, or you're
talking about a local-only version control product that doesn't open
any network ports, but you didn't actually say so, so ... :)

.

Loading